Talk:Rick Warren

Warren, invocation, views on homosexuality

Warren is a prominent religious figure in the US. Created some controversy over some of his comments. Currently, little is mentioned about his views on homosexuality in his article. There's a proposed text to be added into the article. —Phoenix_of9 (via posting script) 03:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Text

Obama's choosing Warren for the inaugural invocation was seen as controversial because of Warren's outspokeness against abortion and same-sex marriage and the position was a "prominent, central role in the ceremony which is supposed to usher in a new civil rights era." Warren compared, in a December 2008 Beliefnet interview , gay marriage to pedophilia, incest and polygamy. He also equated abortion with the Holocaust. Warren later released a video message to his church that he opposes redefining marriage and does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia. At the same time, Warren's church replaced an article on their website about the Bible and homosexuality that included [gays] "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members with a message that explained the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Asked if he was homophobic in another interview, Warren said he was not. He questioned if homosexuality was natural and he considers same-sex relationships immoral Before a Lamebth conference in 2008, Warren supported the decision by Ugandan bishops to boycott it to protest the Church of England's tolerance of homosexuality after Gene Robinson was elected as a bishop by The US Episcopal Church.

(End of proposed text)

Discussion

See Previous discussion on almost identical proposal: [3]--Lyonscc (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this basically a rehash of the same comments that were earlier deemed non-NPOV and rejected? Manutdglory (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This seems almost identical text to proposition previously rejected. See discussion here:[4] Lots of WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV issues all around.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Briefly explain issues regarding those policies. Throwing policy links isnt enough. For example, all statements are reliably sourced so it seems like you do not understand WP:NOR and WP:V Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash every bit of the previous discussion (to which I provided a link, since it seems to have been prematurely archived). First, there is a good deal of inference in the first section, which (as noted) Warren refuted. So, per the entire previous discussion [5], and WP:BLP, this doesn't belong. The length of the section has as many problems as the other proposal above, including (but not limited to) wp:undue weight being given to a non-notable position that Warren is not outspoken about (and, rather, is often criticized by conservative Christians for being "too soft" on). The Saddleback website cite was not a quote from Warren, so it doesn't belong, either, and the following sentence infers that the change to the Saddleback website was in response to the Inaugural invitation, which is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The Ssempa thing is rather fringe and not notable. In short, the suggested addition is completely a mess, solely for the purpose of advancing an agenda.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You contradict yourself in your own paragraph. How can his positions be simultaneously "non-notable" and yet completely apparent to you to the extent that you can actually comment on the finer points ('criticized by conservative Christians for being "too soft" on'). You are pointing out that his positions are sufficiently notable to be publicly criticized. Do you not see how that deflates the very basis of your own arguments? I'm getting so fed up with having to fight these uphill battles with you over and over, especially when you ironically accuse people of SOAPBOX during the very same paragraph in which you defend your apologist stance. Teledildonix314 ^talk 06:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new section to continue an issue already being discussed/decided on is, as stated, a rehash. Warren's stance on homosexuality is controversial only in the sense that nobody can seem to agree where exactly he is. Without solid full text of interviews or actual attributable statements any items included on this page should be considered POV and undue criticism.Chrishpaytas (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)ChrishpaytasChrishpaytas (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

— Chrishpaytas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dayewalker (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My reply to this discussion also addresses the other discussions above, in general:

This encyclopedia article about Rick Warren, although seemingly inflated to give undue weight to his supposed professional notability (which might cause me to think it's puffery) has told us one consistent fact:

• • • Rick Warren has made a career from presenting his viewpoints and selling his ideas. He sells books and fills a megachurch on the premise that his viewpoints and ideas and preaching are somehow worth buying. And yet, each time an editor of this article has attempted to mention the citations which explain *WHY* his viewpoints earn infamy and *WHY* the name of his church is ridiculed due to the notoriety of Warren's viewpoints on some topics, these editors are thwarted.

So, what gives? Why can't we have an article which explains why so many mainstream media outlets and news reporting agencies see fit to devote airtime and column inches to the controversies about Warren's viewpoints and about Warren's career of selling his viewpoints? This seems like a fair thing to expect in an encyclopedia article about this type of person, so i would like to know why it's being 'sanitized' so thoroughly? Why can't we show the readers why he is notable for something like 'saddlebacking' or 'equating abortion with the holocaust' etc etc? Why can't we show the readers the explanations for all of the media attention and all of the notable controversy which stems directly from Warren's 'profession' as a peddler of his ideas and viewpoints? Could we answer this objectively, for the sake of writing a *real* article instead of just a puff-piece or a harsh hatchet-job? Honestly, it doesn't seem like it should engender so much contention when you think of how to summarize these topics. And i'm starting to feel like anything i try to do further is just going to look like trying to 'own the article', so i am hoping somebody else will alleviate my frustration here by giving some simple honest objective suggestions for how to outline the issue of Warren's biography without promoting a personal viewpoint? Teledildonix314 ^talk 10:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose POV. Use of weasel words galore "He claims ... However" as a construct is a splendid example of construction meant to imply facts which ain't facts. Warren's position on thses issues is totally unremarkable, and not valid for a BLP. Some of the sources are intrinsically biased, which means they should be assigned weight only if their biases are noted. And we have already discussed this in the recent past, making the iteration of the same stuff non-utile. Collect (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment You are only right about "however", which I removed. The rest are what the reliable sources say. I put "claim" to be NPOV. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Any suggestion that has been made in regards to Warren and his statements on Homosexuality is conjecture and assumption at best. At worst it is intentionally malicious. I would be amenable to full quotes, not proof texted and from reputable sources. Blogs, Opinion pieces, and editorials are subjective and carry no weight in regards to validity. 'Saddlebacking' should not be included for any reason into this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishpaytas (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

— Chrishpaytas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dayewalker (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I totally agree with Lyonscc, Collect Chrishpaytas. Also, for the record, there is no verifiable citation linking Warren to Ssempa. Again, his actions are his actions, not Warrens and trying to link the two is simply malicious. CarverM (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, before you hang yourself, you might want to go google "Ssempa Rick Warren" and see what comes up. Spotfixer (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have. All the articles make inference and try and connect Warren to Ssempa's actions. There is simply nothing there except for some attempting to link Ssempa and Warren speaking together at an HIV/AIDS conference and him knowing Warren to Warren directing or supporting Ssempa's actions. This is simply not verifiable. All sources are essentially blogs and opinion pieces written with obvious negative intent. CarverM (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I see a lot of people who don't want Warren's views mentioned, but no credible basis for this. This is not a violation of any of the many acronyms being thrown around here. If we need an RfC to fix this, so be it. Spotfixer (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support this a major omission - all reliable sources have mentioned this, thiis is the notable controversy around Warren - an all sources in the edit are reliable sources. I do not not understand the opposition to inclusion from any policy-based point of view. Verifiability not truth. That said, --Cerejota (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think the text is now NPOV and I agree that this is notable. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - even after changes - As a frequent editor of pages on religious figures, two primary tests for notability for inclusion are a) theological/social positions that deviate from the norm of their theological tradition/denomination; and b) overt outspokenness on a specific topic. In this particular case, Warren's position on abortion and homosexuality are a) Not in deviation from the states position of the Southern Baptist Convention, to which his church belongs; and b) he, for years, has been heavily criticized in conservative Christian circles for NOT being outspoken on abortion and homosexuality, and for only belatedly (and only in an announcement aimed at his church, not a press release) endorsing Prop 8 [6]-

When other conservative Christians held stadium rallies and raised tens of millions of dollars for the ballot effort, there was no sign of Warren. Neither he nor his wife, Kay, donated any of their considerable fortune to the campaign, according to public records and the Warrens' spokesman.

In fact, his endorsement seemed calculated for minimal impact. It was announced late on a Friday, just 10 days before Election Day, on a Web site geared for members of his Saddleback Community Church, not the general public.

. Answering questions from reporters on a subject does not make one "outspoken", and Warren is anything but outspoken on this issue. This directly contradicts the first sentence of the proposed addition, and renders the further discussion on his support (or his church's website positions in support) of pro-life and pro-family causes moot, per WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:V. Additionally, it's pretty obvious that the addition of this paragraph is an attempt to coatrack a topic beyond that of the nominal subject of the article. Besides this, see the recently archived discussion on the proof-texted comment that supposedly equates gay marriage with pedophilia, etc. In order to get the full context and avoid violating WP:NPOV, much more of the interview would need to be included. Additionally, having a "one group though X said Y, but Y says that he didn't" inserted into this (or any biography) is classic coatracking and insertion of a straw man fallacy (in addition to being a violation of WP:NOR). As for WP:V, a number of the linked sources are from blogs/self-published media, which are completely inappropriate for a BLP. From WP:BLP:

Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP)

In this case, the primary source of every cited article is the Rick Warren beliefnet interview, and - as proven by the context of the interview as a whole, and more importantly, by Warren't post-interview clarification - the chosen interpretation above would be a "conjectural interpretation" of the original source. This section doesn't belong in this article in the same way that a hyper-Calvinist's rant that Warren isn't a 5-point Calvinist doesn't belong (SBC is Calvinist, but not hyper-, Warren isn't outspoken on Calvinism).--Lyonscc (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is long-winded, repetitive and deeply unpersuasive. You addressed none of the issues raised and instead showed that you were seeing things from such a deeply partisan POV that you can't even recognize the fact that his statements have been controversial to people who are not as religiously conservative as yourself. Essentially, this boils down to nothing more than "I don't want him to look bad, so let's censor the article". No. Spotfixer (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"conjectural interpretation of a source". Can you not read? We are saying what New York Times, ABC News and the San Francisco Chronicle say. And primary sources? "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". First paragraph of your response is completely irrelevant, "As a frequent editor of pages on religious figures", your views are completely irrelevant, what is relevant is Wiki policies. There is no such wiki policy for "two primary tests for notability for inclusion are a) theological/social positions that deviate from the norm of their theological tradition/denomination; and b) overt outspokenness on a specific topic." Do not make up policies. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. What you think about Warrens outspokenness is also irrelevant. I think he is very outspoken and I dont care what even more fundy xtians think. But my view is also irrelevant. What is relevant is what the reliable source say. Your personal opinions can not invalidate sources. Oh and Warrens denomination is Evangelical which may mean Lutheran (Evangelical's page) and Lutheran's in nordic countries are light years different from likes of Warren. Again, Wikipedia is not your soapbox! You are making it very hard for some of us to assume good faith. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a brief lesson in religion - "Evangelical" is not a denomination, but a very broad classification, under which there are a number of denominations. If you read the Saddleback Church wiki page, you will note that Saddleback is Southern Baptist Convention - a VAST difference from Lutheran, Methodist, and other "Evangelical" denominations. Warren's denomination would expel him if he was pro-abortion or taught that homosexual practice (or cheating on your taxes or cheating on your wife) was not a sin. Thus it is entirely not notable that his church's website states pro-life and pro-heterosexual religious positions. I agree that wikipedia is not my soapbox, but perhaps you ought to look in the mirror and look at your edit histories (Ex, Spotfixer reverting formatting changes and removal of dead links on the Emerging Church page because they were recently edited by me, charging that it was "whitewashing", when I'm pretty sure he hasn't clue #1 about the emerging/emergent church, since a number of emergent churches are considered to be "gay-friendly"...)

As the source in my previous note pointed out[7], the only real notability about Warren's stance on Prop 8, abortion and homosexual practice is that he is criticized for NOT being outspoken on these topics. Documented by a WP:Verifiable source. If you had followed this page for the last several years, you would note that many/most of Warren's critics are upset that he's not a pro-life or anti-homosexual activist, and that he doesn't support the Republican party, and that he has chosen to focus on fighting AIDS/HIV, and has partnered with non-Christians to combat this disease, poverty, illiteracy, etc., and that he's concerned about Anthropomorphic Global Warming, etc., etc. As a rule, I would also note, Lutherans are also considered to be Reformed churches, and would not claim Warren in 100 years, because his theology (in their book) is all wrong. He's Southern Baptist, not Lutheran.

Again, I would note that the sources provided are ANALYSIS and CHARACTERIZATION of the same Warren quote from the beliefnet interview. All of them. Warren has stated that these are mischaracterizations and were taken out of context. He provided the correct context, which the transcript bears out. Therefore, these are questionable sources, because they are providing opinion, not fact. We have the quote. We know what he said. He didn't say "homosexuality is equivalent to incest, polygamy and pedophilia". So no matter how many reporters you find who say that he believes this, the quote proves them wrong, and the follow-up proves that they are engaged in conjecture, not hard news.

Also, I would note that I am not trying to double-vote here (since this really isn't "voting" per-se"), but rather responding to the various changes that have been suggested since my initial opposition. Let's drop the threats on my talk page, OK?--Lyonscc (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's your personal irrelevant opinion that those are questionable sources. And he said "yes I do" to the question, "do you think those are equivalent". He could have said No, I dont and then explained it better. And even then he had the chance to do revisions. There are lots of Warren's revisions in the interview but he didnt clarify the comparison comments until after the invocation announcement. So he did make a certain comparison as verified by reliable sources.

But I'm wondering if there's any point in discussing with you since you wont even accept that this whole thing is notable despite many news sources, some of them in german (ie: international attention). To claim that the invocation controversy is not notable is simply delusional. And to claim that the current wording of the article accurately explains that controversy is highly POV. And as I said, if you believe that the wording is not from NPOV, you can make certain additions like "he is criticized for NOT being outspoken on these topics". Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Although i don't feel this wording is actually sufficiently neutral (it's unfairly generous toward Warren) because it does far too much pussyfooting around the contentious points DESPITE a plethora of reliable sources from which to draw quotations and summaries.... nevertheless, this wording is far less objectionable than the puffery which dominates the rest of the article, so i feel at the very least we should Support this block of text, and i would hope the other sections of the article can also be modified in the future to more accurately fit the criteria of an encyclopedia rather than a feel-good bit of fluff which only served to laud Warren and tried make him sound fabulous. The NPOV is almost completely lacking from the other sections of his biography, and i feel that the proposed wording of this section should be Supported, and i hope we can alter the other sections in the future so they more appropriately reflect this type of editing. Teledildonix314 ^talk 23:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There is not a plethora of reliable sources as you say. There are many opinions and one article. Again I would not oppose if full quotes, completely sourced articles, and non POV pieces were used. What has been characterized as 'pussyfooting' and 'puff' is actually a call for scholarship and objectivity which is Wiki standard for bio's. Not certain why all the push to add/scrub info that is factual? Chrishpaytas —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC).
• Oppose The wording is not nuetral. Rick Warren was picked by Obama for unifying reasons. The proposed wording seems to be intended to make controversey. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Lyonscc. To those on the far left, Warren is indistinguishable from Jerry Fallwell. Except for being dead, that is. The proposed text, as it reads now, could probably be equally applied to any other reasonably conservative/evangelical Christian leader. There's probably something additional that can be said on the matter, but this doesn't look like it--this looks WP:UNDUE to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Currently there are 7 opposing (including an administrator and not including myself) and 4 supporting the changes. Once again, attempts to make non-NPOV, whole-scale changes to the article have completely failed, with the opposing side yet to even register a simple majority in consensus. I hope those with an agenda against Warren who wish to radically alter the article now realize that it has become obvious that truly objective and moderate editors have flocked to the article in the last week and are now watching and protecting it and will no longer allow those with an agenda to make this article non-NPOV. Manutdglory (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• meta-comment - I have no opinion as to this dispute or whether consensus exists, but just wanted to remind everyone (in reaction to Manutdglory's comment above and elsewhere) that consensus is not a vote, and that the opinions of an administrator in a content dispute doesn't have any more strength or value compared to non-admins. Please keep these points in mind. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'd really like this article to be truly objective actually. Thats why I've opened a RFC and posted this in NPOV Noticeboard. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Truly objective" - sure. Manutdglory (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest regarding this article has been noted. Since you seem to enjoy throwing rocks around in that glass house of yours, I'll note it again. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For one, I'm not trying to change the article and didn't even count my opposition to the proposal. Secondly, and most importantly, I've never let my bias affect my edits nor have I made a single non-NPOV or inappropriately-sourced edit to this article, unlike others have done. There's obviously a massive difference. Manutdglory (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Lyonscc. The proposed text refers to Warren as being "outspoken" on the issue of homosexuality. That isn't accurate. He's given his opinion on the topic when asked, but he has not been an anti-gay crusader by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that the left has found his adherence to the traditional Christian position on homosexuality controversial may be noteworthy and warrant inclusion in the article, but there is nothing about Warren's career, considered on its own terms, that renders his opinions about homosexuality particularly noteworthy. Adam_sk (talk)

When you say he has not been an anti-gay crusader by any stretch of the imagination, should i use the part of my imagination where i fantasized about Warren working so hard to pass Prop 8? Or should i keep imagining the situation where Warren equated marriage equality with incest and pedophilia? Or should i just daydream about all the wonderful things Warren accomplished for the benefit and safety of gay people who were outed and harassed by Warren's religious friends and "professional colleagues" in Africa? Maybe i should just imagine all the great things Warren has done to help encourage the acceleration of the HIV infection rate in Africa with his unscientific fantasy-based religious Abstinence emphasis, because that certainly wouldn't be any kind of anti-gay crusade? Yeah, that last part, that's the part where i strrrrretch my imagination to pretend Rick Warren is helping gay people everywhere. Unfortunately, that's also the part where i am reminded of the Notable and Reliably Sourced aspects of this discussion which mentioned Saddlebacking, but apologists don't want us to mention that anywhere in this article, either.

But this is all irrelevant. The question isn't whether Warren is an anti-gay crusader or some kind of hyperbole like that. The question is whether we can include relevant and notable facts in this article which have been cited from reliable sources. When you summarily declare the left [sic] has found his adherence to the traditional Christian position on homosexuality controversial this presents three problems. First, this kind of overgeneralization is not at all what is being proposed in the text above. Second, if you think there is a single unchanging traditional Christian position on homosexuality, you've either been sadly misinformed or deliberately lied to, or your education might have been successfully whitewashed by heterosexist propagandists, which amounts to the same thing... but that's entirely off-topic. Third, and really the only important problem here, is: does your vote reflect an opinion that the proposed wording might simply sound critical of Warren and cause his biography to be less than totally flattering? Or does your vote reflect an opinion that the wording is non-neutral? Because if the answer is "simply sounds critical" then that's not a fair basis for determining inclusion; but if your answer is "the wording is non-neutral", then the solution is to offer us some alternative wordings. Please, if you have the time and inclination, do give us your version of a better Neutral wording, and i'm sure many editors would be happy to support it, if it's truly Neutral. That's all we really need here, right? Thanks. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

When you say should i use the part of my imagination where i fantasized about Warren working so hard to pass Prop 8, my answer would be "yes", because you must have fantasized this. In the months leading up to the election, he was being criticized by a number of conservative and church groups for not publicly backing Prop 8. His only "working so hard" was a simple statement posted on his church's web-page, directed at Saddleback Members - not a press release. And yes, apparently you do keep imagining that he equated gay marriage with incest and pedophilia. He did no such thing, and the full quote bears this out - he equated changing marriage to mean somthing else than "1 man-1 woman" would open the gates to further redefining marriage. Additionally, I would note that stressing Abstinence is not the equivalent of pushing an anti-gay agenda. There is a "traditional Christian position on homosexuality", with only recent developments of a handful of denominations veering from this. Writings of the early church fathers [8] go even further in ruling against the incompatibility of a homosexual lifestyle and Christianity. Additionally, the Southern Baptist Convention, Warren's denomination, supports the view that homosexual practice is sinful, and his position is completely unremarkable (aside from his being LESS strident than most) within his faith. How about just letting the guy vote?--Lyonscc (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Teledildonix314: Look, this is obviously a topic you care passionately about. I don't really care that much: I was just responding to a Request for Comment. But that said, I stand by my comment. I'm not a Rick Warren expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think Teledildonix314 or any of the other posters on this topic have shown that Warren is "outspoken" against gay marriage. If you have evidence of that, please present it. I'm just basing my opinion on the cited Beliefnet article, and from that, it looks to me like this wasn't a topic that Warren brought up or was particularly eager to talk about and that, when pressed, he presented the historic Christian position on homosexuality in about as PC a way as you can without denying the historic Christian position on homosexuality.

As for Teledildonix314's comment: "if you think there is a single unchanging traditional Christian position on homosexuality, you've either been sadly misinformed or deliberately lied to, or your education might have been successfully whitewashed by heterosexist propagandists, which amounts to the same thing": Well, I'm happy to happy to swap credentials on this topic: I was an undergrad history major and then did three years in grad school in History at Brown University, an institution which I don't think one can credibly claim is filled with "heterosexist [sic] propagandists". I specialized in the period 1500-1800, but I consider myself broadly familiar with the major general works of both Christian history and of queer history. Beyond which, I have several gay friends who are professional historians. And given that background, yes, I feel totally confident in saying that there is a single, unchanging "traditional Christian position on homosexuality". I've never seen a work by a reputable scholar that asserts otherwise.

To Teledildonix314's question: "does your vote reflect an opinion that the proposed wording might simply sound critical of Warren and cause his biography to be less than totally flattering? Or does your vote reflect an opinion that the wording is non-neutral?" The answer is neither. I think that, based on what I've seen, the proposed wording is 1) inaccurate (or at least not adequately sourced); and 2) includes information that is not noteworthy (an SBC pastor doesn't approve of homosexuality? yeah, none of them do - that's not notable or newsworthy in any way). I'm going to decline Teledildonix314's invitation to provide language for the article because, as I said, I'm not an expert on Warren and I don't really think that's my place - I'm just responding to an RFC. Though, as I mentioned previously, I do think the fact that the left (or, to avoid a "[sic]" from Teledidonix314, it's probably more proper to say the gay rights movement) took particular offense to Warren's adherence to traditional Christianity is notable. That definitely happened, it was in the news, so it should be included in the article.

Adam_sk (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you use [sic] after heterosexist? There is such a term, see: Heterosexism. I do not understand your claim about inadequate sources, there are other sources than belifnet article, can you not see? As for Warren being outspoken or not, noone has to show anything. The only thing that matters is that there should be a reliable source which says so, and there is. Make yourself familiar with wiki policies.

And while there may be a "traditional Christian position on homosexuality", the difference is, in most modern Western countries, people like Warren would prolly not be invited to such high profile government events. That is what is noteworthy. Plus most Wiki users would be unfamiliar with SBC or whatever local US denomination. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Why did you use [sic] after heterosexist?" I actually was thinking that the proper term was "hetrosexual" and "hetrosexist". Guess I should have looked that up - my bad.

As for what what happens "in most modern Western countries" - who cares?? This is an article about an American clearly within the American mainstream. Not Noteworthy, but for the left and the gay rights movement making a stink about him: which is something I think the article ought to include, it just shouldn't misrepresent Warren as being "outspoken" on an issue when he clearly isn't.

Adam_sk (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This isnt Wikipedia American or Wikipedia US. Criticism of Warren saw international news coverage. The article on Robert Mugabe also has international sources and certain things arent ommitted there just because Robert Mugabe is a Zimbabwean clearly within the Zimbabwean mainstream. Please make arguments/statements that make sense. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

support proposed paragraph with any changes to sources to make sure they meet wiki policy. any person outside of california looking up warren would most likely be searching for him precisely because of the controversy caused by his selection to give the invocation at obama's inauguration ceremony. as the article stands now, both the lead and the article mention the existence of a controversy without describing what was controversial about it. this is important information. untwirl (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"one of the best selling non-fiction books of all time"

The citation provided [9] does not support this claim. Rather, it indicates that Warren is among the list of "top-earners". I have adjusted the text accordingly. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps [10] showing "The Purpose Driven Life" at its 166th week on the NYT best seller list will be sufficient? [11] "Life was already a publishing phenomenon. "It was the best-selling book of any kind by far in 2003 and 2004, according to our survey of sales of books," says Publishers Weekly religion editor Lynn Garrett." (note that 2005 etc. figures would be in the future at that point). [12] PDL nearing 40 million in sales -- already over 30 million (three diamond awards). Need more? Collect (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

None of these support the claim "one of the best selling non-fiction books of all time". Perhaps for certain years, yes. But "of all time" is a claim that, thus far, hasn't been verified. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly -- very few books have sold 30+ million copies ever. The WP list shows a total (excluding Mao, the Book of Mormon and the Bible for which the claims of "copies sold" are hard to verify) of a relative handful of non-fiction books selling over 30 million copies. "Boy Scout Handbook" at 150 million. M-W Collegiate Dictionary at 55 million. Spock's Child Care at 50. Roget's Thesaurus at 40 (note all of these have had many editions). Better Homes and Garden's Cook Book at 38. Hay's You Can Heal Your Life at 35. Then Warren at 30 (tied in that list with a bunch of others -- but they are not still selling). Appears to be no worse that number seven on all time best sellers on that list. It is not OR to recognize that nearing 40 million copies keeps it on the all-time non-fiction list. Number 2 if you discount books which have had many editions over the years. Collect (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If the sales data and rankings at that article are properly sourced, then feel free to incorporate it into the text. All I was saying is that the original source provided, and those you followed up with, didn't support the claim. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard several times that the Purpose Driven Life is the best-selling hardcover in history. I'm sure there's a source for that somewhere. Manutdglory (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This article from ABC News (go.com) claims 30 million copies as of June 2007. However, the article places most of its focus on the subject of why Warren and SaddleBack are famous, infamous, popular, and controversial. Given a preponderance of articles which support the contentions that Warren's controversial views deserve some mention, and given the preponderance of evidence which supports some claims saying Purpose Driven Life is one of the best-selling hardcover books in America, i propose a compromise.

Let's put insert text which summarizes these claims of high sales figures, which are not just puffery if they are being reported as Notable in a variety of Reliable Sources, and let's also insert text which summarizes the oft-cited major reasons why Warren's views and his SaddleBack Church are viewed as controversial, and also the Notable mentions from Reliable Sources about how people react with such vigor. As a perfect example of these reactions, Dan Savage's campaign for promoting an infamous definition of "SaddleBacking" would be one which can be summarized concisely and with good citations.

Does that seem like a reasonable compromise at this time? Please consider for the next day or two whether there is middle-ground here which allows us all to present our relevant contributions to the topic without putting undue weight on some particular aspect over another. I'm trying to think of the most neutral wording which follows the facts of the Proposals given above, while keeping away from Undue Weight. Maybe you could suggest some kind of Proposal, or amend the Proposals above? Thank you kindly. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No deal. A well-known, legitimate and notable accomplishment such as being the author of the best-selling hardcover book in American history is obviously not comparable with a derogatory-term coined in jest a few weeks ago. Please stop attempting to override the clear consensus of the majority of editors. Manutdglory (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Seems to me that if we take out the part of your proposal that is already in the article - "30 million copies", then what remains is a rehash of arguments made previously that failed to reach a consensus. This section would be better kept on track finding alternate / better sources for bestseller claims. Kevin (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sure. So when Manutdglory (still not recusing theirself!) mentions a "clear consensus of the majority of editors", what does this mean? We have four or five editors voting one way, we have seven editors voting on the contrary, but one of those seven still won't redact their vote despite COI. This leaves approximately 60/40 in the vote on the Proposals, so i don't know what sort of "consensus of the majority" is being discussed? And i'm sorry if it seems like i'm trying to tie separate sections of this biography together, because i would love to avoid Synthesis-O.R. etc. and yet it seems like the common themes of "Criticisms" or "Public Reactions" or "Recent Media Coverage of Warren" are being stonewalled with no further offers of compromise? If we are stuck on some kind of 60/40 or 70/30 or 50/50 situation, then wouldn't it be good to offer more Proposals or more Amendments to Proposals instead of just blocking any insertions? I don't want to insert any text which doesn't have consenus. But i also don't think it helps the article to block any kind of "Criticism" or "Reaction" subsections from being proposed, because the intentional omission or suppression of Notable information is actually a kind of flipside to Undue Weight... it's a kind of Undue Fluffiness. Who else has a Proposal for a compromise? Who else knows how to restore this article to a NPOV? How do we mention the highly publicized Criticisms and Public Reactions to Rick Warren's recent political activities while avoiding giving Undue Weight to the relative importance (or un-importance) of Rick Warren vis-a-vis the controversial topics in which he chose to be involved? And although everybody should feel free to answer and discuss, i think it's only fair to disclose possible COI here so we don't repeatedly run into situations of head-butting and adversarial conduct, especially when the COI and non-NPOV are firmly established. Does that sound proper here? Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 01:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as I clearly stated, I didn't include my "vote", so it really was 7 to 4 (including an administrator who agreed with us) - go ahead and check. And if we're including your vote, mine should also be counted (since your anti-Warren behavior caused the article to be fully protected twice), so it's actually 8-4 (or 7-3 without us), which is a clear consensus. I know it sucks to be in the minority, but it's obvious that you are and you need to admit that fact. And clearly, the majority of editors do believe that the current article is NPOV, so your arguments to the contrary are baseless. Manutdglory (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And now it is officially 8-4. That should end the discussion. Manutdglory (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. There is no such situation as "end the discussion", and your insistence of such is worrisome. Also, i'm doubting you've really grasped the process of consensus-building, so i feel it's necessary to point out how we go about Participating in community discussions. Additionally, you have not shown any reason why my vote should be ignored: you have not shown where i have any Conflict Of Interest, whereas we have repeatedly pointed out your COI. If you think 8-4 or 7-3 is a "clear consensus", then i would politely ask you to review the dictionary definition. And as for the issue of how it is for me when it "sucks to be in the minority" (and my goodness, doesn't it just warm one's cockles to hear christians declaring whether i am or am not a "minority"?) i would happily point you to the words of the Consensus Policies: In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion. So it is highly inappropriate to attempt to declare the discussion finalized simply because of a half-dozen pro-christian pro-whitewash pro-censorship votes. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Manutdglory, in terms of "establishing consensus," you really should understand that you have an admitted conflict of interest in this case and as such, you should not be making sweeping gestures about establishing consensus. You do not have the right to disregard another user's comments, and in light of your COI, you shouldn't be closing this discussion either. Dayewalker (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe the current state of the article is NOT from NPOV, it is from a biased POV. People who are opposing are failing to bring any suggestions or proposals themselves but are just saying no. So I'll wait for more votes, comments and suggestions for RFC until Feb 15th and if there is no agreement then, I'll Wikipedia:Requests for mediation Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of California Proposition 8

A brief explanation of California Proposition 8 appears in the final paragraph of the article before the Bibliography. When I first encountered the reference, it said that Prop 8 "amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages," which omits an essential fact. Thirty states ban same-sex marriage; Prop 8 is unique for having rescinded it. Readers aware of that fact may better understand why Warren's support for Prop 8 was the subject of protests, and why Obama's choice of Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation was controversial.

I edited the reference to say that Prop 8 "amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry," thereby supplying the missing fact while implicitly making the former point that Prop 8 bans same-sex marriages. I chose that specific language because it conforms to the official ballot title of Prop 8 ("Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry"), as I noted for the history page when I made the edit. Subsequently, user CarverM overwrote my edit with the explanation "changed Proposition 8 reference to NPOV."

CarverM changed the line to say that Prop 8 "amended the state constitution to read, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'" Though this statement is true, it seems more obtuse -- and not substantively more informative -- than the succinct "amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages," which was the description prior to my edit. More importantly, it does not use more neutral language to indicate that Prop 8 eliminated a right; instead, it expunges the fact altogether.

I believe readers would be better served if we include the (verifiable) fact that Prop 8 eliminated, rescinded, revoked (whatever) a right. I propose that we undo CarverM's edit and restore the explanation that Prop 8 "amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

CarverM, I'd be glad to have your support for this, or a fuller explanation of why you think my wording is biased and why the fact itself should be excluded.

Other users, I hope to know whether you believe my wording is NPOV and whether you believe the fact is relevant to the article. Thanks. Benccc (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you are truly unbiased and have no agenda. The very fact that you actually took the time to make a proposal over such a trivial matter makes your motives questionable. What I mean is that someone who is truly moderate and unbiased would have absolutely no problem with the current wording. Your statement that the proposition rescinded "the right" to marry in California is already highly non-NPOV, when what actually occurred was that California voters had already overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage in 2004, only to have the voice of the people struck-down by the radical-leftist California Supreme Court. Prop 8 merely restored the voice of the majority, which is what is supposed to happen in a democracy. Manutdglory (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Proposition 8 "eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry" is not POV; it was a finding both of the Attorney General of California and the state Supreme Court, that's why it was the ballot title of the measure. Wingnutglory's Manutdglory's admitted conflict of interest with respect to the subject of this article is again noted. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Careful Mike, that could be interpreted as the dreaded offense you refer to as "name-calling." Manutdglory (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Trotting a known falsehood out here to smear someone attempting to contribute to this article just might be indicative of your admitted "conflict of interest" with respect to the thuggish slimy weasel that's the subject of this article. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike & Manut, please refrain from personal attacks. And Manut, your analysis above regarding something being "struck-down by the radical-leftist California Supreme Court" betrays a bias in this content dispute. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but this is not a mere matter of Manutdglory's bias. If this were about his clear dislike or resentment of California Supreme Court decisions, that would be bias. This instead appears to me that he is insisting that a number of verifiable, well-documented facts - here, the Prop 8 ballot title wording, the history of how that title came to be, and the history of the law that established the right to marry in California - must be excluded from the article or even from discussion here. That is not bias, it is something more than bias. I'd call it a phobia. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Manu already has both an admitted bias and a clear conflict of interest in this matter, and yet persists in trying to smear other editors as the ones who are trying to use their own POV in the article. Dayewalker (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's because they clearly are. The ball swings both ways. And I'm not the one who is attempting to change the article. Manutdglory (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As one of the editors that worked on the previous wording of the Prop 8 reference, the current wording was decided upon, as it was taken directly from the language on the ballot proposition, and (for those wanting further information) wikilinked to the Prop 8 page. This is about as NPOV as you can get. To go further in explaining it ventures into coatracking territory (since this is an article about Rick Warren, not Prop 8) and (if taken too much farther) WP:NOR, and the quoted text from the proposition provides the political context of the ballot proposition, which is all that is needed for an article on Rick Warren. As for Manutdglory's alleged COI, I would think that anyone directly impacted by Prop 8 would also have a COI, as well. Acknowledging one's bias is not equivalent to invalidating their opinion (and yes, this swings both directions). And FWIW, I've never been to Saddleback, never heard Rick Warren speak (other than on News/YouTube), and I don't belong to his religious denomination, nor do I have a vested interest in Prop 8 (or similar propositions) passing/failing in other states.--Lyonscc (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Benccc, what you have said makes perfect sense. It is more NPOV and encyclopedic to summarize Prop 8 within this article like that, given that it is different from other similar prop's in other US states in an important way. However, I dont think Manutdglory et al (Lyonscc, Collect, Carver) would ever agree to that so please do stick around for the future mediation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Phoenix of9 already assumes to know my thinking I'll not disappoint him. Again, this article is not the place to discuss Prop 8. The only thing barely notable, if at all, is that Warren advised the people at his church to support it and that his views on homosexuality are quite centric to that of the Christian community in North America. If it was to be mentioned at all, it is sufficient to simply use the language of the ballot issue itself as I have already suggested. As to the WP:COI assertions of some, we all have our world view, just accept it. It is quite obvious that the only reason some of the editors who champion LGBT issues have worked on this article is to denigrate, certainly WP:NPOV and WP:COAT issues if not in and of itself a COI issue. No matter, as stated by many, motives are irrelevant. Let's stick to the facts and Wikipedia Policy. CarverM (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If you stick to the facts and Wikipedia Policy then you would reprimand the editor whose COI has been exposed, rather than champion their biased edits. Otherwise, you risk the appearance of being in their same COI boat. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 21:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I sincerely and humbly suggest that you exhibit similar COI and biased behavior. I am trying to stick to the facts and I will continue to let others have their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. No reprimand is necessary. CarverM (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This smells like Lyonscc is phoning in another one of his canned cut-and-paste objections to an addition to this article, full of unsubstantiated babbling about "NPOV" and "NOR" and "coatracking." Here are the quite well documented facts about how Proposition 8 is described, and the options as to how it should be described here:

• The way its proponents describe it. Since this for them is largely a matter of posturing and semantics - because their own people are completely unaffected by the results of the measure - their interest in the subject pretty much ends with the passage of the measure. They can say marriage is only "x" because their own people are prohibited from ever expressing something other than "x," the demonstrated behavior of Ted Haggard and many if not most of their own people notwithstanding. It for them is largely a demonstration of power and status, of ostensibly being able to call the shots by social and political means, by calling for purification of society as they in their fantasies imagine it should be, no matter whose bodies happen to be in the way. (Gives a whole new meaning to the Pentecostal chant/song about "under my feet.")

• The way the people who will have to deal with the aftermath of the measure's passage describe it. Since the Attorney General has to enforce the law once passed, the Attorney General titled the measure so that what happens after the election is quite clear: certain people's rights that existed before the election were eliminated. Since the people proposing the measure aren't ever going to be in that class, or so they believe, they don't care about this, or even care enough to allow the suggestion to pass that the lives of people will be affected. That goes for editors here who are proponents of the measure, who are fighting against any mention of Proposition 8 in a way that might actually hint that individual people are going to be affected by having their rights eliminated. (Yeah, they don't care about people outside their churches except as potential converts, as notches on their bedposts, to be manipulated at will, against their consent, unless and until they get their butt in church. They call this "love," of course, in case you were wondering what they think that word means.)

• Describing it both ways, which would be the equitable way of dealing with the situation as documented.

• Describing it in neither way, simply linking Proposition 8 to the article about it.

After two months of having to restore the ballot title "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry" to the Proposition 8 article in the runup to the election, and having sat through one of the satellite simulcasts promoting the measure, clearly this is how its proponents think. They seem to live in a people-free universe, that nobody will be affected by it, and demand that any description of the measure that actually mentions people's rights must be scrubbed. That is what certain editors want to continue doing here. Justifying this scrubbing and elimination of the mention of real-world consequences of the measure is not "NPOV." It's attempted scrubbing of dissenting views, to which I object in the strongest possible terms. As for COI, your insinuation that anyone objecting to Prop 8 here is a directly-affected, by the common standards of the proponents' evangelical community, dirty diseased queer whose edits must be blocked or questioned on the basis of a COI just shows exactly where your prejudices lie. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Doughney's admitted conflict of interest with respect to the subject of this article is again noted. Manutdglory (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I understand your desire to further explain Prop 8, but (again) this seems to be information suited to the Prop 8 page (which is helpfully wikilinked). Anything other than the actual ballot language, though, has all appearances of coatracking and non-neutrality, because it ceases to be about the nominal subject of the article (Warren) and shifts to characterizing and discussing Prop 8, which is not the nominal subject of the article. The question of whether or not Prop 8 eliminated "rights", etc. is a subject for that article, not one about Rick Warren, who barely weighed in on the issue - and even then, only in a brief web-statement to his own church members. As previously noted, he did not issue a press release, nor did he campaign for Prop 8's passage, nor did he use his considerable monetary wealth to press for its passage.[13] In such light, it boggles the mind why his personal biography page should be a "hill to die on" for discussion of Prop 8... I'd say to either leave it in its present form, or strip any descriptive language, altogether.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I put forward four bullet points above. While I believe that mention of Proposition 8 should be accompanied by both explanations in as brief a form as possible, I would agree that it would be equitable, though not optimal, to simply remove any further description of Prop 8 from this article as I mentioned in my fourth point. The current description is not impartial to differing views on the measure. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, there are some passions here, but let's try to successfully collaborate. I *think* we all agree that:

1. Prop 8 warrants a minor mention in the Rick Warren article;

2. The reason we mention it is to help readers understand why Obama's choice of Warren sparked controversy, and why Saddleback Church has been the target of protests;

3. The Rick Warren article is NOT the place for an in-depth discussion of Prop 8;

4. Readers will be best-served by a mention of Prop 8 that is relevant, accurate and neutral;

5. Prop 8 amended the California consitution to ban same-sex marriages/restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples;

6. Between June 2008 and November 2008, same-sex couples could legally marry in California, and Prop 8 changed that; and

7. Our personal opinions about the California Supreme Court or gay rights or Rick warren are not relevant to the editing issue at hand.

So far so good?

I *think* there are three points of disagreement:

1. Whether it's factual and neutral to say that same-sex couples had the "right" to marry in California prior to the passage of Prop 8;

2. Whether the fact that same sex couples had the [word TBD] to marry until the passage of Prop 8 is relevant; and

3. Whether a word other than "right" may better serve the reader.

Regarding the first question, the California Supreme Court referred to marriage as a "fundamental constitutional right" several times in its May 2008 decision (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF) ending the ban on same-sex marriage in the state, and its finding that marriage is a right was arguably central to its decision; certainly it was central to news reports of the decision. The Court used the word "right" as a legal term. As long as we use the word in the legal sense rather than in the sense of right versus wrong, we can stay within bounds of factuality and NPOV.

Regarding the second question, the most controversial and prominent aspect of Prop 8 was that it eliminated the [word TBD] of same-sex couples to marry in California. On 29 other occasions a state's legal code or constitution has been changed to explicitly ban same-sex marriage, but never before has this occurred in a state in which same-sex couples could legally marry. Therefore I *think* we're more likely to agree that inclusion rather than exclusion of this point will help readers understand why Obama's choice of Warren sparked controversy, and why Saddleback Church was targeted by protests.

I'd like to offer another point about inclusion versus exclusion: as editors, when we have a choice to offer readers more versus less information about a topic, it seems that our common goal to "augment the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia" would lead us to provide "more comprehensive" information rather than less (to quote Wikipedia:About).

Regarding the third question, we probably can't find a shorter word than "right" to make the point. We may not even be able to find a word more NPOV, insofar as that's the term applied by the California Supreme Court in deciding this case, and substitution of another word might be seen as editorializing for or against that decision. It's true that the decision angered many good people who disagreed with it, and delighted many good people who agreed with it, and meant little to many good people who have no strong feelings either way. We probably have no hope of finding another word that satisfies both critics and supporters of the decision, but thanks to the language of the decision itself, we can safely use the word "right" without favoring or disfavoring anyone's opinions.

The three variations I'm aware of for our explanation of Prop 8 are that it:

"amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages"

"amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry"

"amended the state constitution to read, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'"

The first variation is less than half the length of the third, makes essentially the same point (let me know whether I'm missing anything), and makes it more plainly. Keeping our service to the reader in mind, I believe the first variation is better than the third, assuming we wish to choose between them rather than use both. I understand that some of you favor the third over the first, and I'm curious to learn more about why (I know the third includes the legal language of the proposition, but not why this would serve the reader better than the briefer, more direct language of the first).

Because both the first and the third variations omit the relevant point that Prop 8 ended an existing [word TBD], I believe the second variation is more helpful to the reader. It's economical in that it makes the point with 13 words, which is so short (shorter than the third variation, for example) that I think we'd easily be able to defend ourselves against an accusation of coatracking. (I'll be surprised if anyone does accuse us of coatracking based on a single mention of Prop 8, as it's relevant to points made elsewhere in the article and was prominent in the recent spike in news reports about Warren. But I suspect that such an accusation would find little support among editors and would not present us with a problem.)

I hope my comments are useful as we work through what makes sense. 70.21.121.217 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks; I forgot to sign in -- the post above is by me. Benccc (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ben for your thoughtful post here. It's most helpful I think in moving forward. Kevin (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This intelligent summary from Benccc is something i can support, and i would be happy to use a term such as "legal right" in order to stick strictly to the language used in the offical Proposition and avoid infusing my point of view. As long as we use concision and adhere to the language presented by the original citations and news reports, and avoid extensive elaboration (which i admit was happening in my old version of this whole rigmarole, being toooo wordy) nobody will be able to accuse the edit of being a Coatrack, especially if it is solely presenting the most brief summary of the very widespread mainstream media coverage. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed readers would understand we were referring to a legal right, but I agree that Teledildonix314's revision would clarify that: "amended the state constitution to eliminate the legal right of same-sex couples to marry." CarverM, Manutdglory, Mike Doughney, Collect, ZimZalaBim, Dayewalker, Lyonscc, and Phoenix of9, does that work or do you think we can improve? Thanks. Benccc (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think that, probably, the most WP:NPOV way to handle the Prop 8 explanation is the simple wikilinking of the article on Prop 8. The next best would be its current wording, which simply restates the text of the proposition, without trying to go into explaining its affects (which is where the disagreement lies).--Lyonscc (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Amend sentence in lede

{{editprotected}}

 Not done Please reach a consensus before requesting edits. Kevin (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please amend the last sentence in the lede from: Then President-elect Obama later sparked controversy when he asked Warren to give the invocation at the presidential inauguration, which took place on January 20, 2009.

To: Obama later sparked controversy when he chose Warren to deliver the invocation for the 2009 presidential inauguration which took place in January. -- Banjeboi 13:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Current sentence is correct, no need to alter. Collect (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: What is the rationale for the change? It does seem a bit superficial, but innocuous.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Wow, I can't believe this was opposed. "Then President-elect Obama" or Then-anything is deprecated, this should be replaced with more clear syntax. Obama chose Warren rather than asked - is this terribly controversial? the presidential inauguration, which took place on January 20, 2009 is needlessly wordy, the 2009 presidential inauguration which took place in January is more concise and correct, also listing the actual date, the 20th, is generally frowned upon as it has little bearing to this article. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • I didn't oppose it - I just wondered the rationale. If it's simply wordiness, I don't have a problem with re-wording it. I just looked at the past edits (and wrangling over how to title Obama), and wondered why we were changing it...--Lyonscc (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Chose" is different form "asked"? I thought you mainly did not like the accurate statement as to Obama's status at the time. I would think "asked" is correct, as one does not specifically "choose" someone to do something when one has no authority to make such a choice. Collect (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To Lyonscc, sorry, you are lumped together with Collect who also expressed disagreement with this edit. I'm unclear what past edits had any bearing on this but I'm open to better wording. Chose as opposed to asked, really? This is the big controversy worthy opposing this change, really? Really? If the most powerful person in the entire world asks you to do something do you really quibble if they chose you or if they asked you? Reliable sources state Obama chose Warren. Perhaps they chose to ask him? In any case this seems more like a reason to argue than an actual content dispute. Can we consider this resolved and approved now? -- Banjeboi 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you do not have a consensus, why are you asserting one? Collect (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How about this, then:

Obama later sparked controversy when he invited Warren to deliver the invocation for the 2009 presidential inauguration which took place in January.

That seems less wordy than the current lede, and is accurate in its active verb (invited).--Lyonscc (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If the point is to reduce wordiness, there is no need to state "which took place in January". Clicking the link gives you all the details you need. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Very true, I concur.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Today i reverted an anonymous edit in the opening paragraphs of the article because the wording was changed to something milquetoast ("caused some to be upset") when the actual reference from CNN had a headline of "choice sparks outrage". I find it somewhat irritating that this type of editing has to be done, because it's a clear example of whitewashing when the actual verifiable reliable sources were using much stronger language. Now i fully expect to be attacked for making this edit, because Warren's apologists cringe whenever anything sounds faintly negative on his article. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 22:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there some way you can communicate what you have done without referring to other editors as "Warren's apologists"? The tone of your post does not help to promote a good editing atmosphere. Kevin (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This may shock you, but actually, I believe I'm the one who wrote the original sentence about sparking controversy. But let me guess, I'm still an "apologist" right? Manutdglory (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "sparked controversy" is neutral and appears to be the consensus version. Some people were indeed "outraged", as quoted in CNN (and other mainstream press), but "controversy" is probably less likely to spark controversy here. I endorse the reversion. — Becksguy (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I didn't see the additional comments above when I posted my last, but lets assume good faith that Kevin Teledildonix314 did not mean to refer to any other editors here by the term "apologists". — Becksguy (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC) —— [PS: My bad, corrected user name with strikeout] — Becksguy (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that Kevin would assume i was referring to other editors as "Warren's apologists"... do you suppose Kevin arrived at this presumption because The Shoe Fits? And no, Manutdglory, i am not shocked by your choice of text, because as you've probably already realized in the worlds of Show Business and Professional Charlatanism (which are mostly the same, right?) there is no such thing as "bad publicity" as long as they spell all the names correctly. Garnering attention from controversial pronouncements is one of Warren's professional skills, so really i'm the rube if i play into that sort of situation by giving further mention to this type of mountebank. It's too bad we can't have a neutral and educational article about Warren; but then again: we don't have neutral and educational articles about most of the subjects involving supernaturalism, superstition, and charlatanism on the Wikipedia, so why expect differently in this case?

Careful Teledildonix - Kevin's an administrator, so it's probably not a good idea to tick him off. Becksguy, it's clearly obvious that Teledildonix is indeed referring to other editors here, including myself and Kevin (he admitted this in his above comments), and he's done it repeatedly, despite the warnings of a slew of administrators to stop personal attacks. Manutdglory (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

It is obvious that it will be difficult to reach agreement when the proposals are such large additions or changes. Editors here would be better served suggesting minor changes so as to move slowly toward a neutral position that everyone can like with. Something of the nature of the previous section, although consensus for a change must be reached before adding {{editprotected}}. At present mediation will be difficult with the black/white nature of the arguments. Kevin (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly the enmity here is strong, maybe in time this will dissipate. -- Banjeboi 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say, i can't figure out if any of my efforts here are helping or harming anymore, and i just don't want to make things worse instead of better. So i'll probably just have to wait for somebody else to Arbitrate and resign myself to the fact that the previous six edits and edit attempts which i have tried to make during the past six weeks have all been stonewalled by editors who specifically gave Apologist pro-christian views as their reasons for their blockage, despite four or five editors giving contrary views which supported my edit attempts. If none of my contributions are permitted by a group of editors all sharing a particular bias while being described as 'approvable' by another group of editors sharing a diversity of viewpoints, what does that mean? Because that's the way it feels, to me. Maybe i'm wrong, but as i read back through my Contributions and my proposals and votes, it seems like this is the pattern glaring in front of me. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 21:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assertions are incorrect and against WP guidelines. As far as I can tell, your arguments show the greatest religious bias of any editor's posts here at this point, so I suppose that is a major problem for you. Collect (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i don't know what you mean by my religious bias? What edits are you describing? I would happily remove any religious bias from any of my edits and have them all instantly corrected to your approval if they were religious. Could you kindly tell me where i did that? Seriously, please look at the Edit History of this article and show me where my edits had religous tone or non-NPOV so i can be sure to eliminate that from any future behavior. Thanks, i really want to get that right and stick to the same standards as expected of everybody else. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your posts here repeatedly disparage large numbers of people for their religion. And the edits I refer to are primarily on the Talk page where such bias is made sufficiently clear to most. Do you feel you have not disparaged traditional Christian teachings? Collect (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, i don't know what you mean by "teachings" or anything educationally related? Where did i disparage people for their religion? Did i say something about a religion or a religious person or their religious ideas which was somehow inaccurate or intolerant? I want to practise tolerance, i think it's a big component of Wiki-Civility, so if you show me where i disparaged people's religion, i'll apologize and then improve my behavior by learning from my mistakes. Thanks. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 19:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(will remove after you respond) in your words you refer to "other Apologists who support Warren", "Congratulations to Rick Warren and all you other evil hatemongers and scapegoaters and fantasy-based superstitious barbarians", "your fantasy-based supporters ", "pro-christianist characters", "Apologist pro-christian views " and the like might well be construed as disparaging those with traditional Christian views. Disparaging beliefs of others rarely makes them more amenable to your positions indeed. Collect (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) _{thank you, i also went back just now and did the strikethroughs of my flamewords too} Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Okay, Collect, i'm sorry for using a word like 'evil' and that kind of vocabulary because it was inflammatory. In my defense, i was almost a total newbie, and the first several people who greeted me identified as christian and bit me rather hard; i was following the wrong examples. I'm sorry for making that kind of mistake, and if you review my History of contributions, i promise you will see only improvements, and no backsliding. I mean this sincerely. I don't hurt people's feelings or sensitivities on purpose. Unfortunately, i have a powerfully strong opinion, and i just blurted it out crudely, without finding the tactful and collegiate way to say it. I know now how Civility is so tremendously useful, and you helped teach me that. I will do better.

My opinion is better expressed referring to the topic and the qualities of the information rather than the editors and their supposed view for presenting the references. The way i form fundamental criteria for my behavior here is to stick to the language which abides by the spirit as well as the letter of the rules. So, here it is, just an opinion: some may drastically disagree, but i am permitted to say it with dignified civility and concision in this collegial discussion.

Religion is the opposite of education; faith is the opposite of intelligence; fantasy is the opposite of reality; superstition is the opposite of demonstration; i can only make constructive contributions when i politely honor those principles with dignity in a civil and collegiate way. Thank you for helping me to learn how to do this better. Your patience is appreciated. I don't want to appear like some horrible decrepit old disabled crank who can't even figure out how to ethically and honestly value these ideals and goals; i will never intentionally throw piety and callous harsh words like 'evil' and 'hate' incorrectly, and i will never swear that i am unquestioning or inflexible on any truly intelligible topic. If you help me remain that ethical, i will learn how to be a model of graciousness to all encyclopedists, editors, visitors, and general random people. Sincerely and fervently, Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Many would demur from your opinion, but, more importantly, strong opinions make for bad edits. Pretend the other editor is your next-door neighbor -- whose lawnmower you might wish to borrow someday. Invite him over for dinner, and don't discuss the stuff you disagree on. When all is said and done, this article is "mere words" and all the angst about what it says is to little long-term avail. That does not mean "Don't care" but it does mean "Don't care too much." OK? Collect (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I looked at how BenjiBoi was trying to be a model of tolerance, and i needed to follow your sorts of advice about not exposing viewpoints in the edits because the verifiable facts can expose information without my help. I thought people were behaving like commentators on webcomics fora (e.g.) and mistakenly took my early impressions of rabblerousing all the way into what would better be an atmosphere like a college or library or museum, and i know how to totally adjust. I even had experience at curating and procuring information and fact-checking when i had jobs years ago, so i can learn all the dignified ways to do that well around here. I think DJs and chefs and curators and encylopedists are good models of behavior for me to try to learn because i don't have personal abilities to be creative and do research, but i can learn how to share information and language if you help me understand. I promise. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 23:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"verifiable facts can expose information without my help" Indeed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding conflicts of interest

The tone of discussion on this article is extremely uncivil and needs to change. Even if some editors have a conflict of interest, note that the guideline compels editors to "not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute." Further, those with conflicts are not precluded from engaging in (civil) discussion on the relevant talk page. Please work towards consensus constructively, otherwise, perhaps this collaborative project simply isn't the place for some of you. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous editing - personal attacks etc - editors blocked

I do not like putting up general notices at an articles talk page BUT this continually escalated situation is now way beyond the pale. I have just blocked two editors for 72 hours for their personal attack style edits and I will immediately block for personal attacks as necessary in the case of any future cases of such attacks, even if I find them a few hours later. You can also be sure that dramatic increases to blocking lengths on second or subsequent offenses will occur. Look folks nothing is so important that you risk your good name and ability to be a part of this project if the only way to do so is to resort to harassing, attacking, calling names etc. My very strong suggestion is that if this article even causes you to think there is a need to act in such a way, that you instead go and work on a completely unrelated page. This beating each other into verbal submission and attacking any person who comes in with a new view is ridiculous. Instead please remember that working on wikipedia is supposed to be enjoyable for you and for everyone - let's make it that way again at this page please; or alternatively suffer the consequences of being locked out for a period of time? --VS ^talk 07:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I think the protection here has been on for long enough, so I intend removing it shortly. Let's please avoid the edit warring and personal animosity, and continue the way it has been for the past few days. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)